Shiv Shankar Kumar @ Shiv Shankar Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6404 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== SHIV SHANKAR KUMAR @ SHIV SHANKAR CHAUHAN Son of Late Musahari Chauhan Jangali Beldaria, Budhaul, P.S.- Nawada, Dist.- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar 2.

Punam Kumari D/o Late bachchu Chauhan, W/o Shiv Shankar Kumar @ Shiv Shankar Chauhan, Resident of Village - Tanrpar, P.S.- Ariyari, Dist.- Sheikhpura.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Syed. Rizwanul Haque For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia Mr. Bharat Lal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the opposite party no. 2 and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Sheikhpura (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 61 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 498A, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has committed no offence as alleged in the first information report. Petitioner is still ready to keep his wife with love and dignity. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6404 of 2020(10) dt.18-01-2022 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and there is direct allegation against him of demand of dowry and torture. Moreover, petitioner being the husband hd the responsibility of keeping his wife with full honour and dignity, in which he failed. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T